Links relacionados

Compartilhar

versão On-line ISSN 2312-3621versão impressa ISSN 1010-9919

Old testam. essays vol.29 no.2 Pretoria 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2016/v29n2a6

ARTICLES

The use of priestly legal tradition in Joshua and the composition of the Pentateuch and Joshua

Pekka Pitkänen

University of Gloucestershire, UK

ABSTRACT

This article looks at how priestly legal materials can be seen to have been used in Joshua. This includes the allotment of towns of refuge, levitical towns, the concept of centralization of worship (Joshua 22:934) and the Passover. The argument will be that priestly material has been incorporated in a Deuteronomic framework and that Joshua can be seen as a document that quite uniquely combines Priestly and Deuteronomic legal materials. In this, Deuteronomic legal materials can be considered as encompassing priestly materials from an interpretative perspective, in line with the narrative order of Priestly and Deuteronomic materials in the Pentateuch. Relevant textual issues will also be taken into consideration, such as with the portrayal of the Passover in Joshua. In addition, the article considers issues that relate to theory construction and how they relate to the topic in question.

Wellhausenian approaches to the study of the Pentateuch have typically postulated that priestly materials (P, H) are chronologically later than narrative and Deuteronomic materials.1 In terms of the study of the book of Joshua, the widespread acceptance of Noth's Deuteronomistic hypothesis2 fit very well with this reconstruction about the relative ordering of narrative, deuteronomistic and priestly materials. However, with recent developments in the scholarship of the Pentateuch and the historical books Joshua-Kings, the relative dating of the Pentateuchal sources has been questioned and the existence of a Deuteronomistic History has been disputed, if in fact there ever was a full consensus on these matters anyway.3 In addition, and in my view rightly so (especially considering how one can see the whole of Genesis-Joshua as a chiastic structure with promise-fulfilment themes), an increasing number of scholars have recently been moving towards a concept of a Hexateuch, even if this concept may be constituted differently from the time before Noth.4 And, methodologically, once a Hexateuchal approach is taken, or is even on the horizon, it is clear that an investigation of the book of Joshua is tied with, or at least related to, considerations that relate to the study of the Pentateuch also. A number of the newer Hexateuchal approaches still see priestly materials as a later layer in the work than materials that are Deuteronomic, even if the priestly materials may now be followed by post-priestly narrative layers.5 But there have also been scholars, such as Milgrom and Weinfeld, who have seen priestly materials as earlier than Deuteronomy, and it is notable that Milgrom explicitly favoured the concept of a Hexateuch.6 Interestingly, though, for Milgrom, and also Knohl, the Holiness School was the final redactor of the Pentateuch, in other words, while P was of earlier origin, H was something that was added on later.7 More broadly, an idea of H being later than P now seems to be most often followed.8

Again, we come back to the question of the composition of the Hexateuch. My intention is not to fully argue for a compositional hypothesis here as I have already done that elsewhere.9 I will therefore briefly summarise the model here and make further comments based on it and build on it for this article. I would like to note that the following presentation will be about plausibilities rather than certainties. In general, scholarly preferences can result in a variety of reconstructions, and, arguing for a particular position can sometimes resemble more of a religious argument than an academic one. In this, one may keep in mind that the route of most academics to Old Testament/Hebrew Bible studies is via theology and religious studies, and this may explain why some of the arguments in the field can be religiously charged, mutantis mutandis, or, more generally, have less to do with academic issues than claimed (cf. below).10

In relation to the enterprise, then, I believe it is easier (or at least as easy as with any other options) to conceptualise the option that priestly legal materials have been incorporated in the composition, especially in terms of the narrative. That is, whoever formed the narrative used priestly materials as components that were put in. I have already earlier argued that the Hexateuch was essentially composed by two authors working together, the first (A1) writing Genesis-Numbers and the second (AD) Deuteronomy and Joshua.11Both used various sources as part of the work. The legal materials probably developed at least partially in parallel, even though the Deuteronomic legal materials were composed based on the Covenant Code and were aware of Priestly materials (P and H) and at least partially supplemented them (e.g. the allowance of profane slaughter in Deut 12 vs Lev 17).12 In this, I agree that H had built on P and was combined with it (cf. Figure 1 below). Incidentally, a recently published PhD dissertation in Germany has independently argued along similar lines, suggesting that Deuteronomy is subsequent to legal materials in Exodus-Numbers and builds on them.13 This makes sense from a narrative perspective. That is, it would be rather natural to see later materials in a narrative sequence as superseding earlier materials where the two might be in contradiction. And, based on for example what Kitchen and Lawrence have suggested, it is easy to see two covenants running through the Pentateuch, one in Exod 20-Lev 26 and another in Deut 5-28, with both starting with the Decalogue and ending in blessings and curses (materials in Exod 12-13 and Lev 27-Numbers could be seen as supplements in an ancient Near Eastern style).14

We are then starting to arrive at a conceptualisation where Deuteronomy is aware of the priestly legal materials and is building on them.15 If this is the case, Joshua is likely to be proceeding similarly, especially if one follows a dual author hypothesis. However, there are also some differences. Whereas Deuteronomy does not reproduce priestly materials, Joshua does. Deuteronomy presents its own version of the laws based on priestly antecedents, and Joshua is then interestingly a document that explicitly combines both priestly and Deuteronomic legal perspectives. In terms of the narrative placement, Deuteronomy can be seen as partially an intrusion to the Hexateuchal narrative (see Figure 2), and yet it has been carefully integrated in it, being a farewell speech of Moses at the edge of the promised land.16 Joshua however completely mirrors materials from Genesis-Numbers and portrays how many issues anticipated there were fulfilled or otherwise put in effect in the so-called Promised Land.17 This is in particular the case with Josh 13-22 which mirror Num 27, 32, 34-36 closely.18 The Transjordanian issue in Num 32 is also notably mirrored in Joshua, with an inner "Deuteronomic" chiasm.19 Importantly, as can be seen in Figure 3, while a number of themes can be traced back to Deuteronomy, there are equally a good number of points that have a direct correspondence only in Genesis-Numbers, including in terms of the utilisation of priestly legal materials. While one might wish to argue in terms of traditional redactional theories here, if one assumes that Joshua largely builds on what can be (presently) seen in Genesis-Numbers and Deuteronomy, one may at the very least equally argue that everything has been laid out in a rather straightforward manner. Such a model has the advantage of being a relatively simple one.20 As part of this, specifically, one may note that it is not necessary to follow Deuteronomistic history based approaches that tend to forcibly, and in my view unconvincingly, minimise the role of priestly materials in the book of Joshua.21

I will next present some concrete examples in support of the proposed approach. I will concentrate only on examples of passages that may have parallels with priestly materials, even if I will mention parallels to Deuteronomy only. Figure 3 below may be consulted for the presentation. Some further details about source division and utilisation in certain individual cases are included in my commentary on Joshua.22

B LINKS BACK TO PENTATEUCHAL LEGAL MATERIALS IN JOSHUA

1The law of Moses

The law of Moses in Josh 1:7-8; 8:31-34; 22:5; 23:6; and possibly 24:26 is largely a Deuteronomic concept. However, Exodus and Numbers may also be alluded to, at least by implication, also considering the reference in Num 31:21; cf. Lev 26:46. While there are some textual differences, including in Josh 1:7-8 (e.g. Law of Moses missing from Greek in v. 7), cumulatively, the law is referred to sufficiently to counter claims that, based on textual witnesses, the concept of a torah of Moses is a later addition.23 So these occurrences are in line with our premise.

2Children's questions

Children's questions occur in Josh 4:6-7 and 22:24-28. The context can be Deuteronomic (Deut 6:7, 20), but may also have a narrative-based (maybe traditionally E) background in Exod 12:26-27. In addition, Josh 4 and especially ch. 22:9-34 clearly include priestly features. Thus, the children's question may be linked with priestly features, even if the matter cannot be conclusively proved.

3Crossing of the Jordan

The crossing of the Jordan in Josh 3-4 mirrors Exod 14-15 and includes priestly features. These include the mention of the ark and the priests as the carriers of it (cf. Josh 3:3 versus Num 4). Certainly one cannot say that the depictions in Joshua 3-4 involve direct quotation of priestly materials in the Pentateuch, however, the material in Joshua is at the minimum compatible with that in Numbers.

4Circumcision

Circumcision in Josh 5:1-9 can be considered to refer to priestly materials in Genesis 17; Exod 12:44-48; Lev 12:3. Circumcision is not clearly referred to in Deuteronomy. This easily fits with the idea that the reference is to priestly legal materials.

5The Passover

The Passover in Josh 5:10-12 could as such refer to any of the CC, Dt or P/H materials. The comment that unleavened bread was eaten the next day (v. 11), which is missing from Greek, is at the very least broadly in line with both Lev 23 and Exod 12 when one considers a day as both ending and starting from the evening and reads maharat in Josh 5:11 as apparently referring to the next morning, with the idea that the feast of unleavened bread "proper" starts on the day after the Passover. The relationship with Deuteronomy (16) seems unclear in this respect, but there is nothing in the passage that excludes the possibility of knowledge about, or even use of, priestly material, with or without the passage missing from Greek.

6Jericho

The siege of Jericho (Joshua 6) refers to priestly materials, particularly the priests and the ark, even if the trumpets are not the silver trumpets of Num 10:1-10.24 Again, while a connection with Deuteronomy and other knowledge about trumpets is possible, a connection with priestly material is fairly natural, even if the description of the trumpets is not exactly like that in Num 10:1-10.

7The ban (herem)

The ban (herem; Josh 7-8; 9; 10-12; 23:3-5, 7-10; 24:8-13) is primarily a Deuteronomic concept (e.g. Dt 7), and yet a total destruction, even if without the label herem, also in effect features in such passages as Num 31 (P or H narrative) and in Exod 17:8-15 (JE[E] in classical source criticism). And, one should note its occurrence in the Mesha stele outside the Bible. They are also in line with ancient Israelite settler colonialism that is manifest throughout Genesis-Joshua and as explicit commands in addition in Exod 23:20-33; 34:1016; Num 33:50-56.25 At the minimum, nothing is in contradiction with priestly materials here. 24 Cf. Pitkänen, Numbers, 98-100.

8Altar on Mount Ebal

The altar on Mount Ebal (Josh 8:30-37) is clearly a Deuteronomic concept (Deut 27). I have elsewhere argued that Lev 17 has a paradigmatic concept of centralization on which Deuteronomy builds, and that Deuteronomy centralizes only under peaceful conditions when settlement has been completed (Deut 12:8-11).26 The book of Joshua assumes that this takes place in the latter days of Joshua (14:15; 21:43-45), after the events at Mount Ebal. So the situation can be considered to be in line with priestly legal materials.

9Hanging on a tree

Hanging on a tree in Josh 10:26-27 can be considered to refer back to Deut 21:22-23. There are no legal parallels with priestly materials.

10Tribal allotments

The tribal allotments in Joshua 13-19 clearly refer back to the book of Numbers 32 and 34.27 While the Transjordanian allotments do have a parallel in Deuteronomy (see Deut 3:12-22), the Cisjordanian allotments in effect do not, but can easily be considered to refer back to priestly materials in Num 34. In other words, clearly the allotments can be seen as a fulfilment of priestly injunctions in Numbers. One should also note that Num 32 and Josh 22:9-34 bracket the story about the Transjordanian allotments.28

11Caleb and Joshua's inheritance

The fulfilment of Caleb and Joshua's inheritance in Josh 14:6-14; 15:10-19 and Josh 19:49-50 only has a counterpart in Deuteronomy in 1:36; 1:38. At the same time, this story can easily be seen as referring back to the priestly tradition in Numbers, at the minimum in Num 14:20-38; Num 26:65 and Num 32:12, which incorporate considerably more detail about the matter. Therefore, considering that there is a link to the priestly traditions seems very logical.

12Daughters of Zelophehad

The daughters of Zelophehad (Josh 17:3-4) are only mentioned in the book of Numbers (27; 36), in a priestly context (P/H narrative/special legislation). Clearly the passage in Joshua can be read very naturally as being about the fulfilment of the Numbers passages.

13Tent of meeting

The Tent of meeting (Josh 18:1; 22:19) is clearly a priestly concept. It refers back to Exod 25-40 in particular. It is very unlikely that the tent in Exod 33:711 is referred to (whatever one makes of this apparent second tent). It is true that the "second" tent may feature in Deut 31:14, but the priestly concept clearly seems to be in mind in the book of Joshua, also considering that the setting up of the tent of meeting at Shiloh is considered as a restoration of creation in Genesis-Joshua.29

14Cities of refuge

The cities of refuge in Josh 20 appear to refer back to both Deuteronomy and Numbers. The description conflates language from both Deuteronomy and Numbers.30 As Barmash would suggest it, "Joshua 20 is a Deuteronomic reworking of a priestly kernel."31 Even if vv. 4-6 were not in the original, missing as they are from Greek, vv. 1-3 already support this idea.

15Levitical towns

The Levitical towns in Joshua 21 are based on Num 35:1-8; Lev 25:32-34 and are a fulfilment of the Numbers passage, with Lev 25:32-34 already assuming the institution. The Levitical towns are not mentioned in Deuteronomy.

16The Eastern tribes

The Eastern tribes feature in both Numbers and Deuteronomy. In Joshua 22, verses 1-8 can be explained on the basis of Deuteronomy alone, but vv. 9-34 clearly have a priestly character. I have elsewhere argued (and cf. my comments above in relation to the altar on Mount Ebal) that the priestly materials (Lev 17) prescribe centralization as only applicable in the wilderness and thus as paradigmatic for the land as a whole.32 Also, the centralization requirement in this passage is Deuteronomic and is valid now that Yahweh has given rest to the settling Israelites (Josh 14:15; 21:43-45 vs. Deut 12:8-11).33

Thus, one may argue that Joshua has used priestly materials for Deuteronomic purposes.

17 Covenant renewal at Shechem

It does not appear clear as to what legal materials Joshua 24 refers to. The book of the Law of God could be a separate document or could, in the understanding of the writer, be linked with Deuteronomy or, for example, even the Pentateuch (or even Genesis-Joshua) as a whole. The passage does not seem to offer either confirmation or refutation of the position taken here about the relationship of Deuteronomic and priestly materials.

C SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It is easy to argue that the overall orientation and style of Joshua is Deuteronomic,34 and, as indicated above, I have elsewhere suggested that Deuteronomy and Joshua were composed together. I have then argued that for Joshua, the author has also incorporated priestly materials into his Deuteronomistic framework. Nothing in the book seems to be against such an idea. Adopting such a perspective makes the composition of the book neat and straightforward, enabling one to see essential unity and authorial purpose without complicated redactional considerations, even if this does not mean that such considerations should in themselves be rejected as a whole. Interestingly, such passages as Joshua 20 suggest conflation of priestly and Deuteronomic language. This hints towards tight integration of both priestly and Deuteronomic traditions in the book of Joshua, even when the overall framework has been determined by Deuteronomic concerns. Joshua seems to be unique in this respect, and, more generally, no other biblical book refers to Pentateuchal legal materials in such a close manner. Coming back to compositional considerations, if one sees Joshua as having been written together with Deuteronomy with more or less full knowledge of priestly materials, such a state of affairs is a very straightforward one to conceive. Interestingly, this position is in a number of respects in line with a Deuteronomistic History hypothesis. It is just that the "history" does not continue beyond Joshua, and that Joshua clearly has incorporated priestly materials. Naturally, and also considering ancient Near Eastern parallels, the assumption here is that the work may have gone through modifications as it was passed on through time.35

From the perspective of theory construction, such an approach may appear too "simple" to some. However, we have a very strong historical example about a case where a simpler theory has been agreed to have been the better one. Before the time of Copernicus, elaborate theories, involving what are called Ptolemaic epicycles, had been constructed around the theory that the earth was the centre of the Universe. It was the work of Copernicus and Kepler that explained things based on heliocentrism, and that made the complicated geocentric theories unnecessary. Interestingly, it took quite a while for the thoughts of Copernicus and Kepler to be generally accepted due to the European scholarly commitment spearheaded by the Catholic Church being strongly committed to a geocentric view. The geocentric view had of course been held for centuries, and therefore the weight of tradition was also behind it.

Overall, it generally seems that the biblical studies field, and within it especially the subfield of Pentateuchal studies, ultimately does not question its fundamental assumptions, even if a number of issues have without doubt been debated.36 A nice contrast is the questioning that for example the overall archaeological discipline has undergone.37 This includes such issues as the criticism of the "requirement" of perusing "sacred academic texts" as a young scholar so as to qualify for acceptance in the field38; attempts to legitimate the field of study by claiming that one must "imitate natural sciences";39 exclusivity of method;40 and a requisite that one must read extensively in an unfamiliar literature in order to understand a particular theory so as to be able to evaluate it, that is, claiming that non-followers of that particular theory are ignorant and thus, by way of a familiar tactic in academic writing, claiming authority and putting the reader on the back foot.41

It is difficult to understand from an intellectual perspective why the assumption of development from simple to complex is still held in terms of the Israelite legal materials and societal development. An outdated anthropological model seems to be underlying this assumption, even if that is rarely articulated and accepted to be an anthropological theory. There is no comparable instance from any ancient Near Eastern, if even from any known society that attests a development of this type. In addition, the social scientific disciplines of anthropology and sociology that reveal patterns in the development of human societies had not yet developed, not to mention that nineteenth century scholars did not have access to the wealth of ancient Near Eastern data that attests great societal complexity in the second millennium BCE. Under such circumstances, I cannot but consider the tenacious adherence by some to the Wellhausenian scheme as anything but an outlook that is equivalent to religious fervor and has nothing to do with intellectual curiosity and a desire to genuinely reconstruct the past of an ancient society, or even the way that an ancient document may have been constructed. At the very least, an openness to a variety of possibilities should be entertained.42 As Bintliff notes in regard to archaeology, "Reliance on a personal dogma, an a priori claim that the 'world works like this', surely impoverishes the researcher's ability to discover how the Past was created, since alternative approaches or insights are from the first ruled out of investigation,"43 and such a statement surely applies to other areas of study also, including biblical studies. Coming back to the comments made in regard to Joshua, I do not claim that the approach proposed must be the correct one to the exclusion of any other approach. But I see no reason why an approach, which in particular does not assume a Wellhausenian scheme (or perhaps dogma!) of development from simple to complex, should be excluded a priori, as some might wish to argue, especially when it provides a relatively simple and straightforward model to explain the relevant data. At the very least, I hope that an alternative approach can stimulate one to think about the interpretation of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. In some ways the approach outlined above can even be compared with postmodernism and radical orthodoxy in systematic theology. This approach questions the tenets of modernism and its achievements, namely Wellhausenian biblical criticism and its claim to "scientific objectivity" and a particular view of societal progress, returning to more traditional positions, that is, the essential unity of the Pentateuch and Joshua, and yet does not leave out of consideration what has come in between in scholarship. Nor is the position arrived at here a premodern one, in that for example, unity in the work is considered to be a product of utilisation of sources, the Pentateuch is seen together with Joshua and is not a work of a single author but in this case of two, and the work could have been modified and updated as it was passed through centuries in the Israelite society. The approach is also postcolonial in that Genesis-Joshua is seen as a legitimating document for ancient settler colonialism in the time of early Israel, also in contrast to a premodern approach that would assume a Mosaic authorship.44

_. Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon's Temple, repr. of 2004 edn with a new introduction by the author. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2014. [ Links ]

Dr. Pekka Pitkänen is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Gloucestershire, FCH Campus, Swindon Road, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ, United Kingdom. Email:ppitkanen@glos.ac.uk1 See Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israel, 6 ed. (Berlin: Druck und Verlag Georg Reimer, 1905. 2 Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 2 ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. 3 See most recently Benjamin Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12-26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015); Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1,1-4,43, vol. 1 of Deuteronomium 1-11, HThKAT (Stuttgart: Herders, 2012), 1-256. 4 See for example Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (Philadelphia and New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), xviii; cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 1,1-4,43; Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 4,44-11,32, vol. 2 of Deuteronomium 1-11, HThKAT (Stuttgart: Herders, 2012). 5 See Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag: 2003); cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 1,1-4,43; Otto, Deuteronomium 4,44-11,32.6 Milgrom, Numbers, xviii; Moshe Weinfeld, The Place of Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004). 7 Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). 8 See Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 9 See Pekka Pitkänen, "Reading Genesis-Joshua as a Unified Document from an Early Date: A Settler Colonial Perspective," BTB 45 (2015): 3-31, doi: 10.1177/0146107914564822. There have been no responses thus far to this proposal. 10 But, cf. also e.g. Clifford Geertz, Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), with implications for fields beyond anthropology as well. 11 Pitkänen, "Reading Genesis-Joshua," 4-10. 12 I will not attempt to elaborate a social context for the legal codes here. However, I do note that any contexts postulated by Wellhausenian approaches proceed from source critical reconstruction to reconstructing a social context, with very little external evidence involved. 13 Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora, 1-326. 13 Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 3: 127-131. 15 Again, for some very detailed argumentation in support of this premise, see Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora, 1-326. Interestingly, and as far as I know, the argument in that dissertation is not in any way dependent on my work but comes to similar conclusions. 16 I have now argued that the narrative about Moses's death in Deut 32:48-52 and Deut 34:1-9 continue the story from Num 27:12-23 in a rather straightforward manner and were composed by A1 based on sources available to him and given to A2. Deut 31:14-23 is by AD (Deut 31:23 is clearly Deuteronomic; cf. e.g. Josh 1:6, which leaves only vv. 14-15 but which could have been composed based on knowledge of Al's work) or (in my view less likely) a later addition together with the Song of Moses in Deut 32:1-47; see Pekka Pitkänen, Numbers (unpublished manuscript [commentary], 2016), 170-171. 17 Interestingly, the distribution of the Levitical towns in Joshua is not exactly as specified in Num 35:6-8 (see Milgrom, Numbers, 290). The same goes with the allotments in Num 26:52-56 (see Pitkänen, Numbers, 167). It is easy to think that AD had a slightly differing view about the towns than A1, just as was for example the case with dealings with Edom in Num 20:14-21 vs. Deut 2 (see Pitkänen, Numbers, 143). 18 See Pitkänen, Numbers, 153, 171. 19 See Pekka Pitkänen, Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon's Temple, reissue with a new introduction by the author (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2014), 191-211. 20 Cf. the concept of Occam's razor, and cf. further below. 21 Cf. Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 121-135, 141-148. 22 Pekka Pitkänen, Joshua (Leicester: IVP, 2010), 110-401. 23 For textual issues, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 294-299 specifically on the book of Joshua. 25 See Pekka Pitkänen, "Pentateuch-Joshua: A Settler-Colonial Document of a Supplanting Society", Settler Colonial Studies 4/3 (2014), 245-276, doi: 10.1080/2201473X.2013.842626; cf. Pitkänen, Numbers, 196-197. 26 See Pitkänen, Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel, 95-109. 27 Cf. Pitkänen, Numbers, 153. 28 See Pitkänen, Central Sanctuary, 210, largely based on David Jobling, "'The Jordan a Boundary': A Reading of Numbers 32 and Joshua 22," SBL Seminar Reports 19 (1980): 183-207, and cf. above, p. 4 in the Introduction. 29 See Pitkänen, "Reading Genesis-Joshua," 13, for this concept and its implications for reading Genesis-Joshua as a document that legitimates ancient settler colonialism. 30 See Pitkänen, Joshua, 335-336. 31 Pamela Barmash, Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 92. 32 See Pitkänen, Central Sanctuary, 75-94. 33 Cf. my comments above in relation to the altar on Mount Ebal. 34 See Gordon Wenham, "The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua," JBL 90 (1971), 140-148. 35 See Pitkänen, Joshua, 247-264, and David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). In the course of time, Joshua came to be separated from Genesis-Deuteronomy in a "canonical" context; cf. Pitkänen, "Reading Genesis-Joshua", 19, and Otto, Deuteronomium 1,1-4,43, 231-257 for two views and related further comments on this. 36 Such works as Roger N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A methodological Study (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) and Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) do question many of the underlying assumptions of classical Pentateuchal criticism, as does the newly developed redactional layers approach referred to above, however, their basic premise is still fundamentally based on a development from simple to complex in the context of the history of ancient Israel. 37 See John Bintliff and Mark Pearce, eds., The Death of Archaeological Theory? (Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow books, 2011). 38 John Bintliff, "The Death of Archaeological Theory," in Bintliff and Pearce, eds., The Death of Archaeological Theory? (Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow books, 2011), 8. 39 Mark Pluciennik, "Theory, Fashion, Culture", in Bintliff and Pearce, eds., The Death of Archaeological Theory? (Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow books, 2011), 41. 40 Pluciennik, "Theory, Fashion, Culture," 40-41. 41 Pluciennik, "Theory, Fashion, Culture," 40. 42 Overall, Bintliff and Pearce, eds., The Death of Archaeological Theory? argue for pluralism and eclecticism for archaeology, the topic of their study, and there is no reason to discount such argumentation as applying to biblical studies also. 43 Bintliff, "The Death of Archaeological Theory," 18. 44 See e.g. Pitkänen, "Pentateuch-Joshua: A Settler-Colonial Document of a Supplanting Society," and "Reading Genesis-Joshua as a Unified Document from an Early Date."